Pakistan Journal of Psychology, June 2022, 53, 1, 3-23

DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF SELF-ESTEEM

SCALE FOR CHILDREN

Barerah Siddiqui*
Institute of Professional Psychology
Bahria University, Karachi-Pakistan

ABSTRACT

The study aimed to indigenously develop the Self-Esteem Scale for

Children grounded on multidimensional model of self-esteem by James
Battle (2002). For this purpose self-esteem was espoused as having
four components namely (1) General self, (2) Social self, (3) Academic
self, and (4) Parental self. After item generation the scale was
administered on a population of 298 children in terms of two pilot
studies having sample of (n=97; n =200) repectively. After pilot testing,
the final Self-Esteem Scale for Children was administered upon a
sample of 234 children with age range between 12-16 years. Principle
component analysis showed that most of the items on scale were heavily
loaded on first four factors with Eigen value >.1. The 16-item scale
correlated positively with an average of r= .50, p<.01. The Self-Esteem
Scale for Children is shown to have very good internal consistency
(α=.80, p<.01), split-half reliability (r= .68, p<.01) and test-retest
reliability r= .80, p<.01). Henceforth psychometric evaluation
established Self-Esteem Scale for Children as a reliable and valid
measure of self-esteem in a multidimensional context.

Keywords: Self-Esteem, Children, Adolescent, Scale Development,

Validation

*
Correspondence Address: Barerah Siddiqui, PhD; Assistant Professor, Institute of
Professional Psychology, Bahria University-Pakistan. Email: barerah.ipp@bahria.edu.pk

3
 Siddiqui

INTRODUCTION

The construct of self-esteem is as diverse as any human behavior and cannot

be fully defined through a single operational definition, therefore various theories
have been postulated in order to fully understand the dynamism behind self-esteem
as it modulates the developmental stages of human being by making them adjust to
the transitions of life such as social, occupational, educational and interpersonal.
Self-esteem can be considered as one of the most commonly researched construct in
social sciences, it’s been so extensively explored that more than 54,000 articles and
researches have been published on it from 1980’s till 2017 (American Psychological
Association, 2017). This substantial body of literature is filled with critical
theoretical debate over the genesis, effects and consequences of self-esteem
(Baumeister et al., 2003; Cameron & Granger, 2019; Choo et al., 2017; Gebauer et
al., 2015; Leary, 2004; Peng, et al., 2019).

Notwithstanding the crucial role of self-esteem in child’s emotional,

physical and psychological health/wellbeing, its measurement has proven to be
difficult for decades. Many scales have been developed, but unfortunately are poorly
validated with low psychometric properties. Therefore it is considered hard to study
the consequences of self-esteem for behavior, cognition and affect of children
(Heatherton & Wyland, 2003). Despite these shortcomings, the importance attached
to this construct by many researchers and theorists have resulted in many assessment
measures of self-esteem

There is no single agreed definition and theory of self-esteem from the

earliest nineteenth century to the contemporary period. It has been explored and
explicated in different dimensions many times. Its definition was remodeled by
Rosenberg (1965), who provided an empirical model. Rosenberg definition of self-
esteem was based on James theory and classified self-esteem into three distinct
divisions (i) the affective and cognitive components (ii) self-evaluative component
(iii) Social component. Rosenberg redefined self-esteem from being a self-
evaluative emotion to a construct having cognitive and social aspects. Similarly
when Coopersmith (1967) defined self-esteem he also added the component “worth”
along with self-evaluation, and considered it as a powerful indicator of self-esteem.
Using his theoretical conceptualization he developed an instrument to measure self-
esteem, which is considered as one of the initial tools to measure self-esteem. The
development of this tool made self-esteem an empirical and measureable construct.

4
 Pakistan Journal of Psychology

Many of the recent theories of self-esteem define it in terms of two

distinctive elements (i) evaluative component and (ii) affective/emotional
component. These theories provided a conceptual framework on which self-esteem
could be assessed and quantified through various tools. One of the major issues self-
esteem assessment faced was the presence of multiple self-referent terms used
interchangeably with self-esteem such as self-acceptance (Pillay, 2016), self-worth,
(Byrne, 1996), self-regard (Rogers, 1959) self-concept (Ackerman, 2018; Jack,
2020). Pope and associates (1988) even described self-esteem as an evaluative part
of self-concept. Both complex constructs have certain similarities as they both deal
with a person’s self-worth and self-evaluation, and both are often affected by
perception, cognition and judgments of one’s self and others (Dillon, 2004). To
ascertain that the measuring tools are actually measuring self-esteem and not another
self-referent construct, over the years researchers provided operational definitions
distinguishing these similar terms from the construct self-esteem (Baron & Byrne,
1997; Coon, 1994; Epstein, 1973; Rogers, 1959; Snygg & Combs, 1949; Turner,
1968).

Many researches were conducted to understand whether the structure of

self-esteem is uni-dimensional or multi-dimensional (Miller & Moran, 2007;
Tafarodi & Milne, 2002). Researches which consider self-esteem as an overall self-
attitude, believe that self-esteem assessment and measurement scales are empirically
sound when taking the construct globally. In order to prove its uni-dimensional
nature Robins et al. (2001) constructed a single item scale which measured self-
esteem globally on a 5-point likert scale. Nonetheless, self-esteem is also regarded
as multidimensional construct and substantial amount of data define self-esteem in
terms of estimate of self within specific factors such as academic competence,
relationships and success or failure (Brooks, 1992; Papadopoulos et al., 2011; Saigal
et al., 2002). One of the major critique towards uni-dimensional assessment of self-
esteem came from Susan Harter. Harter (1991) postulated that while measuring self-
esteem development in children and adolescent numerous components and factors
need to be studied. She specifically mentioned measuring perceived competence in
important domains of life and measuring social support from peers friends and
significant others.

In Pakistan there is a dearth of assessment tools when it comes to measuring

self-esteem in children and adolescent population. On National level a few
researches have been carried out to study the construct of self-esteem and self-
concept within the Pakistani culture. For instance, some studies (Farid & Akhtar,
2013; Iqbal et al., 2012; Javaid & Aslam, 2019) explored self-concept and self-

5
 Siddiqui

esteem through various assessment tools. One of the earliest studies exploring the
self-concept of school going children was carried out by Durrani (1989), he
developed a scale comprising of 24 items on a 5-point Likert scale. Previously
Ahmed (1986) carried out a study to develop and validate academic self-concept
scale. It consisted of 40 items and had good psychometric quality. This scale was
used by different researchers to assess academic self-concept (Aziz, 1991; Shafiq,
1987). Recently few indeginous tools have been developed to access self-esteem in
pakistani adolescents (Rizwan et al. 2017; Iqbal et al., 2016). Saleem and Zahid
(2011) developed scale to measure self-esteem in school children with focus on
academic and social aspect of children. Self-esteem being one of the frequently
assessed construct in adolescence (Masselink et al., 2017; Marsh 1989; Robins,
Norem & Cheek, 1999) needs to be explored in Pakistani population as well.

Hence development of scales specifically directed for this sample is

significant. Based on the aforementioned literature our study is based on the premise
that self-esteem is best measured as a multidimensional construct and is an attempt
to develop and validate Self-Esteem Scale for Children (SESC-ICP) grounded on
James Battle’s (1992) model of self-esteem. For that purpose James Battle’s (1992)
model of self-esteem has been taken. Self-esteem has been conceptualized by Battle
(1992) through four different terms, namely; acceptance, evaluation, comparison
and efficacy. The development of self-esteem occurs gradually as the child grows
and his or her self-emerges (Battle, 1992). According to Battle, the self is ambiguous
and not well consolidated to begin with, but it becomes more defined and integrated
as the child matures and develops experiences by interaction with significant people
in his or her life. Battle (1990) posits that the cognitive and emotional makeup of
self-esteem, when once established remains consistent throughout life. Battle (2002)
provided an operational definition of self-esteem stating; “It is an attitude of an
individual towards himself or herself, build upon one’s estimate of his or her abilities
and limitations in four domains (1) General self (2) Social self (3) Academic self (4)
Parental/home-related self”.

Literature shows that individual differences exist in people’s behavior with

respect to their cultural differences (Markus & Kitayama, n.d). Therefore, the current
research will focus on the significant areas of self-esteem that are cultural specific.
The present scale is specifically developed in Urdu language i.e the National
language of Pakistan for ease of understanding. Many slangs and terms pertaining
to Western culture are not applicable when applied to Eastern culture. Henceforth,


ICP stands for Institute of Clinical Psychology

6
 Pakistan Journal of Psychology

this scale will be easy to understand by the Pakistani children as they can relate with
it more aptly.

METHOD

The development and validation of Self-Esteem Scale for Children (SESC-ICP) is

accomplished in following phases:

Phase I: Development of Self-Esteem Scale for Children

A deductive approach was employed, and theoretical definition of Self-

esteem as given by James Battle (2002), was used as a guide for the creation of new
items. Battle’s scale CSFEI-3 was also taken as a reference point, which defines self-
esteem in 4 different dimensions i.e.: (a) Academic Self (b) General Self (c)
Parental/Home Self (d) Social Self.

The participants, procedure, material and instruments necessary for each step are
deliberated by stages when applicable.

Step I: Generation of Item Pool

The item pool was created by in-depth interviewing from different

community settings. They were asked about their opinions based on the definition
of self-esteem as provided by Battle (2002). The qualitative data obtained was
analyzed and items were formulated. Furthermore, review of translation and
adaptation of previous related measures of self-esteem was carried out and included
in the item pool. Lastly experts and panel of psycghuoogist were asked to generate
questions tapping Battle’s model, which were also included in the initial item pool.
Initially, 168 items were generated in this way.

Step II: Experts’ Evaluation

Next the item pool was content validated by expert panel copmrising of 5
Assistant Professors having PhD. Qualification. A total of 47 items for General Self-
esteem, 40 for Social self-esteem, 43 for Academic Self-esteem and 40 for Parental
Self-esteem were given to the panel for evaluation. Repetitive and overlapping
questions were eliminated, item calarity and grammatical finnese was also
maintained. A combination of reverse and forward scoring items were kept to avoid
response bias. Panel was asked to rate the face validity of items on a continuum of

7
 Siddiqui

1-5 where 1 stands for least relevant item and 5 stands for most relevant to the
construct. Items having an average rating of 3 and above were selected and below 3
were discarded. After eminiation of ambigious, double barreled and leading
questions a final draft of 149 items was created for pilot study.

Step III: Pilot Testing

As described by Benson (1998) and Downing (2006), developing a scale is

an intricate process therefore two or more iterations of different steps is necessary
before considering the developed measure valid and acceptable for use. Henceforth,
our study involves two sets of pilot testing followed in each case by subjective and
psychometric analysis.

(i) Pilot Study-I: In the first pilot study 149 itemized scale (General
Self=39, Social Self=33, Academic Self=37, Parental Self=40) was put
to testing, using a 5-Point Likert scale. Negative items were put in
between positive items to check the validity of the responses. A sample
of 97 participants was recruited from 3 different schools of Karachi,
having an age range of 10-16 years. After pilot testing, responses were
content analyzed, so that the items which were reflective of the self-
esteem construct can be kept and unrelated items could be discarded.
Correlation values were examined and items with values <.3 were
eliminated, On the basis of total-item correlation and scrutiny of item
responses many of the vague redundant and repetitive items were
eliminated. The final scale was reduced to 44 items.

(ii) Pilot Study-II: The second pilot study was carried out to obtain self-
evaluative items that are reflective of children self-esteem. The Purpose
was to refine the scale and also to reduce number of items responsible
for the variance. The 44 itemed scale was administered on a sample of
200 children aged 12-16 years. The sample was taken from a single
English medium Convent school. After data collection a panel
comprising of three experts in the field of Psychological scale
construction were approached. The 44-item scale was presented before
the panel to select items with greater discriminating power on the basis
of face validity, total-item correlations and subjective judgment. The
scale after rating and elimination was reduced to 25 items

8
 Pakistan Journal of Psychology

Phase II: Item Analysis through Structural Validity: Factor Analysis and Total
Item Correlation

Item analysis was carried out to choose highly associated items for the
development of the scale.

Participants

The sample comprised of 234 respondents (n= 234) who were selected from
various school of Karachi from commercial and private sector. In order to make the
sample representative of the whole population gender participation of both sexes
was maintained. Age range of the participants was between 12 and 16 and their mean
age was 14.2 years.

Procedure

The participants were administered upon the final scale, comprising of 25

items and 5 response categories 1=Completely true, 2= Somewhat true, 3= I don’t
know, 4= Somewhat false, 5=Completely false.

Statistical Analysis

The evaluation of data was done to examine item response distributions; to

assess the internal consistency of the scale using Cronbach’s alpha; and to check
item total correlations using Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient.
Structural validity of the obtained data was also measured through factor analysis,
before that KMO-Bartlett test was administered (Table2).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Exploratory factor analysis was carried out for data reduction. The EFA was
run on 25 items to check factor validation and item significance. Adequacy of data
was maintained through Bartlett test of Sphericity (Table 3). KMO value of 0.79
indicated that the data is in the acceptable range declaring adequate sample. Also
Bartlett’s test is significant p<0.001for Self-esteem scale suggesting the data is
suitable for factor analysis.

Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed 8 components having more than one

Eigen value and the scree plot reflects 4 major components having Eigen value >1

9
 Siddiqui

explaining the model. After the examination of all the factors and their respective
items with loading value >.4 a consistent pattern is found in the content which can
be labeled into different dimensions. After removing item 4 and 8 from factor 1 due
to their high generalizibility all the items on factor 1 are related to theme of academic
self-esteem. Items on factor 2 are related to Parental/home related self-esteem. Items
on factor 3 are related to General self-esteem. Lastly items on factor 4 are related to
a common theme of social self-esteem. Hence our final SESC-ICP may constitute
of 16 items with 4 subscales having categories (1) General Self-esteem (2) Social
Self-esteem (3) Academic self-esteem (4) Parental Self-esteem.

Factor structure analysis, communalities index and eigen values have

confirmed 16 items based on 4 factors. General Self-Esteem component comprising
of 3 items, Social Self-Esteem component comprising of 4 items, Academic Self-
Esteem component comprising of 5 items and Parental Self-Esteem component with
4 items are heavily loaded on the given construct.The factor loading of each item
ranges between .45 to .97.

Statistical Analysis

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was carried out by using principle

component analysis and varimax rotation (Table 6).

Phase-II: Validation of 16-Item Self-Ssteem Scale for Children

Reliability Analysis:

Participants

For measuring the reliability of final version of Self-Esteem Scale (SESC-

ICP), the sample comprising of 234 participants were selected from various school
of Karachi from commercial and private sector. Age range of the participants was
12-16 years and their mean age was 14.2. For test-retest reliability a sample of 40
participants with 14 males and 26 females was reapproached after an interval of 1
week (Table 8).

Procedure

Permission from educational institution and participants’ parents was sought

and informed consent was taken. Research purpose and significance is briefed. The

10
 Pakistan Journal of Psychology

final version of SESC-ICP was administered on the selected sample. At the end the
participants and respective Institution were thanked for their cooperation and time.

Statistical Analysis

The collected responses were analyzed using Statistical Package for Social
Sciences (SPSS; V. 21). Cronbach’s alpha was calculated to assess internal
consistency where Pearson r was employed to assess Split-half reliability Test-retest
reliability. Inter correlation between the subscales was also determined using
Pearson r (Table7).

RESULTS
Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of Sample (N=234)

Group f %
Gender Male 164 70.1
Female 70 29.9
Religion Islam 215 91.9
Christian 1 .4
Hindu 18 7.7
Birth Order First 69 29.5
Middle 93 39.7
Last 72 30.8
Fathers Education Illiterate 8 3.4
Middle 12 5.2
Primary 4 1.7
Metric 59 25.3
Inter 49 21.0
Male Female Total Sample
Mean Age 14.5 13.6 14.2

11
 Siddiqui

Table 2
Item-total Correlations of 16 items on Self-esteem Scale for Children (N=234)

Item No. r Item No. r

1 .57 9 .60

2 .52 10 .52

3 .47 11 .60

4 .53 12 .64

5 .48 13 .49

6 .43 14 .53

7 .53 15 .41

8 .52 16 .38

Table 3
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy (KMO) and Bartlett's Test of
Sphericity

Bartlett Test

KMO p Chi Square df p

Self-Esteem Scale for .79 .00 1433.8 300 .00

Children (SESC-ICP)

12
 Pakistan Journal of Psychology

Table 4
Communalities of 25 items of Self-Esteem Scale for Children including 4 Subscales,
obtained through Principle Component Analysis (N=234)

Item No. Initial Extraction Item No. InitIal Extraction

Item 1 1.00 .619 Item 14 1.00 .745

Item 2 1.00 .677 Item 15 1.00 .531

Item 3 1.00 .580 Item 16 1.00 .615

Item 4 1.00 .557 Item17 1.00 .560

Item 5 1.00 .677 Item18 1.00 .514

Item 6 1.00 .673 Item 19 1,00 .548

Item 7 1.00 .619 Item 20 1.00 .645

Item 8 1.00 .516 Item 21 1.00 .562

Item 9 1.00 .496 Item 22 1.00 .607

Item 10 1.00 .454 Item 23 1.00 .722

Item 11 1.00 .624 Item24 1.00 .555

Item 12 1.00 .624 Item25 1.00 .669

Item 13 1.00 .677

13
 Siddiqui

Table 5
Eigen Values & Percentage of Variance explained by 8 components of Self-Esteem
Scale in the Factor Solution obtained through Principal Component Analysis
(N=234)

Component Eigen value Variance %

1 5.279 21.116

2 2.163 8.653

3 1.640 6.560

4 1.335 5.342

5 1.203 4.811

6 1.188 4.750

7 1.033 4.132

8 1.013 4.051

14
 Pakistan Journal of Psychology

Table 6
Rotated Component Matrix of the 25 items of Self-Esteem Scale for Children
obtained through Principal Component Analysis (N=234)

Rotated Component Matrix

Component
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Item16 .707
Item17 .697
Item19 .638
Item4 .627
Item15 .624
Item18 .553
Item8 .500
Item9
Item25 .783
Item21 .682
Item20 .674
Item24 .614
Item2 .780
Item1 .647
Item3 .523
Item13 .771
Item12 .701
Item11 .551
Item10 .469
Item23 .804
Item22 .662
Item5 .801
Item7 .586 .451
Item14 .838
Item6 .782

15
 Siddiqui

Table 7
Reliability Analysis of Self-Esteem Scale for Children and is Subscales

Split Half Test-Retest

Subscale α r r

General .62 .48 .73

Social .62 .57 .72

Academic .76 .72 .74

Parental .58 .44 .90

SESC-Total .80 .68 .86

Table 8
Inter-correlation between Self-Esteem Scale for Children and its Subscales (N=234)

Subscales 1 2 3 4 CSES

1 General __ .43** .40** .35** .70**

2 Social __ .31** .30** .71**

3 Academic __ .33** .82**

DISCUSSION

Our study was based on the preamble that there is a dire need of good scales,
developed in local language to measure self-esteem in children specifically
adolescents. Literature review provided in the preceding section established the
merit of self-esteem in young population. The cost of having low self-esteem is huge,
hence rationale of scale construction. Research review further showed that only few

16
 Pakistan Journal of Psychology

scales available have good psychometric profile, majority of the scales are based on
single unit constructs.

Our Self-Esteem Scale for Children (SESC-ICP) scale established Self-

esteem as a multidimensional construct with subcomponents. We followed notion
given by (Azjen & Fishbein, 1975) that global unit does not define self-esteem into
behavior but specific self-esteem does. Another reason for developing multi faceted
scale was the importance of peers, family environment and academics in shaping up
children self-esteem. As studies suggest low social activity and lack of friendships
is associated with Self-esteem problems (Donders & Verschueren, 2004); bullying
at school results in low self-esteem (Ahmed & El-Salamoni, 2018) and low grades
are also linked up with poor self-esteem in children (Alvarez & Szücs, 2022). In fact
all these problems are somehow related to different facets of Self-esteem which need
to be explored considering these as the important areas of child’s life. Also it further
purpots Battle’s (2002) model of multidimensionality in self-esteem. Henceforth the
16 itemed final scale comprises of four subscales.

Exploratory factor analysis identified 8 factors through varimax rotation out

of which 4 significant factors were drawn by merging common themes in the
redundant factors. After that nine factors werer identified through varimax rotation
including 82 items (Table 6). On the basis of these factor loadings the four highly
loaded factors were labeled as General self-esteem having 3 items, Social self-
esteem having 4 items, Academic self-esteem having 5 items & Parental self-esteem
having 4 items. These findings are in line with previous researches which found self-
esteem having multidimensional structure (Coopersmith, 1967; Briggs & Cheek,
1986) similarly our research after factor analysis yielded four underlying dimensions
of self-esteem. Although nature and type of subcomponents differ across studies,
(Franks and Marolla, 1976) but a general theme persists which includes feeling of
self-evaluation, competence and feeling of adequacy.

Total-item correlation of the scale has been computed as in Table 2. The

magnitude of the scores reveal that correlation with the total score increased after
two pilot studies (Average= .5), which serves as an indicator of increased internal
consistency for the selected 16 items. All the items show moderate to strong positive
correlation with the total scale score. Correlations are significant with p <.01 which
indicates the homogeneity of the scale and validate that the items are tapping the
same underlying construct (Nunnally, 1978). Another estimate of internal
consistency is the inter-item correlation matrix given in table 15 which shows mild
to moderate positive correlation among items with p <.01. However item 16 of

17
 Siddiqui

Parental Self-esteem is found to be correlating negatively with items of general self-

esteem (Item 3; r = -.04), Social self-esteem (Item 9, r = -.03) and Academic self-
esteem (Item 6; r = -0.3). It is showing the discriminating power of Parental Self-
esteem scale, however the values are low and only single item per domain is showing
negative correlation. Therefore these negative correlations will have a negligible
effect on the total score hence it can be ignored.

Reliability analysis indicates that even though our total-item correlation

values are not high for all the 16 items, but the correlation is strong between the
subcomponents and overall self-esteem construct. Matrix of intercorrelation (Table
7) shows the correlation coefficient between SESC and its four subscales having
r=.70 (p<.01), r=.71(p<.01), r=.81(p<.01) and r=.88(p<.01) for General self-esteem,
Social self-esteem, Academic self-esteem & Parental self-esteem respectively. It is
also found that the strength of correlation is higher between SESC and its subscales
as compared to strength of correlation among subscales. Hence it can be assumed
that not only our scale measures self-esteem as a general and over all construct but
its subscales can also be taken as separate measures which are assessing different
dimensions of self-esteem.

Children’s cognition and feelings about themselves are private and often
difficult to be observed; hence construct validity is important for validation. Self-
report measures are utilized to draw inferences, which are prone to different biases
and confounding variables. Since our scale also assesses Self-esteem through a self-
report measure, it faced the problem of social desirability. In the first two pilot
studies, subjects attributed to themselves traits which are socially accepted and
responded in negation over items that were challenging their self-esteem and making
them feel exposed. As suggested by Huang (2013) while being assessed individuals
with low self-esteem will try to mask their feelings of inadequacy, when they interact
with people they consider important. Similarly on the initial drafts of scale (Pilot
Study 1 & 2) the children tried to falsify responses by presenting a good picture.
Hence total-item correlation yielded weak values initially and many of the items had
to be removed. Social desirability has always been considered a threat to validity by
many researchers (Furr, 2010; Meisels & Ford, 1969).This faking good and
falsifying resulted in many of the items being cut and subscales reduced to a limited
few items, which yielded low alpha values in reliability estimates. Children Self-
Esteem Scale on the basis of above mentioned psychometric evaluation can be
established as a valid and reliable tool to measure self-esteem in children.

18
 Pakistan Journal of Psychology

REFERENCES

Ackerman, C. C. (2018). What is self-concept theory? A Psychologist explains.

https://positivepsychology.com/self-concept/

Álvarez, C., & Szücs, D. (2022). The relation of school achievement with self-
esteem and bullying in Chilean children. Current
Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03409-z

Ahmed, M. G. A. E., & El-slamoni, M. A. E. A. (2018). The impact of school

bullying on students' self-esteem in preparatory school. American Journal of
Nursing Research, 6(6), 679-688.

Aziz, S. (1991). The role of some social and enviromental factors in drug addiction
among male university students. [M.Phil Dissertation, National Institute of
Psychology, Quaid-e-Azam University].

Psychological Association. (2017). Self-esteem.

http://www.apa.org/search.aspx?query=self-esteem

Ansari, Z. A., Farooqi, G. N., Yasmin, M., & Khan, S. (1982). Development of an
Urdu Checklist: A preliminary report. Islamabad: National Institute of
Psychology.

Azjen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An
Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Baron, R. A., & Byrne, D. (1997). Social Psychology (8 ed.). Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.

Battle, J. (1992). Culture – Free Self-Esteem Inventories for Children and Adults.
Texas: Pro-Ed.

Battles, J. (1990). Self-esteem: The new revolution. Edmonton: James Battle &
Associates.

Battle, J. (2002). Culture free self-esteem inventories i(3rd ed.). Austin,TX: PRO-
ED.

19
 Siddiqui

Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high
self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or
healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Intrest, 4, 1-44.

Benson, J. (1998). Developing a strong program of construct validation: A test

anxiety example. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17, 10-18.

Brooks, R. B. (1992). Self-esteem during the school years: Its normal development
and hazardous decline. Peadriatic Clinic of North America, 39, 537-550.

Byrne, B. M. (1996). Measuring self-concept across the life span. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.

Choo, C. C., Harris K. M., Chew P. KH., Ho R. C. (2017). What predicts medical
lethality of suicide attempts in Asian youths? Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 29,
136-341. doi: 10.1016/j.ajp.2017.05.008

Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedants of self-esteem. San Francisco:

W.H.Freeman and Company.

Coon, D. (1994). Essentials of Psychology (6th ed.). Los angeles: West Publishing
Co.

Dillon, R. S. (2004). What's a women worth? What's life worth? Without self-
respect? On the value of evaluative self-respect. In P. Des Auteles & M. Walker
(Eds.), Moral Psychology: Feminist ethics and social theory (pp. 47-69).
Lanham: Rowman and Littlefeild.

Donders, W., & Verschueren, K. (2004). Zelfwaardering en acceptatie door

leeftijdsgenoten. Een longitudinaal onderzoek bij basisschoolkinderen. Kind en
Adolescent, 25, 74-90.

Epstein, S. (1973). The self-concept revisited a theory of a theory. American

Psychologist, 28, 404-16.

Farid, F., & Akhtar, M. (2013). Self-esteem of secondary school students in

pakistan. Middle East Journal of Scientific Research. 14(10), 1325-1330. doi:
10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2013.14.10.2502

20
 Pakistan Journal of Psychology

Furr, R. (Ed.) (2010). Social desiribility. SAGE Publications, Inc.,

https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412961288

Gebauer, J. E., Sedikides, C., Wagner, J., Bleidorn, W., Rentfrow, P. J., Potter, J., et
al. (2015). Cultural norm fulfillment, interpersonal belonging, or getting ahead?
A large-scale cross-cultural test of three perspectives on the function of self-
esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 526-548.

Heatherton, T. F., & Carrie, L. W. (2003). Assessing self-esteem. In S. J. Lopez &

C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models
and measures (pp. 219-233). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological
Association.

Huang, C. (2013). Relation between self-esteem and socially desirable responding

and the role of socially desirable responding in the relation between self-esteem
and performance. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(3), 663-
683.

Iqbal, S., Ahmad. R., & Ayub, N. (2012). Self-esteem: A comparative study of
adolescents from mainstream and minority religious groups in Pakistan.
Journal of Immigrant and Migrant Health, 15(1). doi: 10.1007/s10903-012-
9656-9

Iqbal, M., Bibi, F., & Gul, A. (2016). Adaptation and validation of Aricak’s
Professional Self-Esteem Scale for use in the Pakistani Context. European
Journal of Social & Behavioral Sciences, 16(2). doi: 10.15405/ejsbs.185

Jack, C. (2020). Are self-confidence and self-esteem the same thing?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/women-autism-spectrum-
disorder/202004/are-self-confidence-and-self-esteem-the-same-thing

Javaid, Q., & Ajmal, A. (2019). The impact of body image on self-esteem in
adolescents. Clinical Counselling and Psychology Review, 1(1).
doi: https://doi.org/10.32350/ccpr.11.04.

Leary, M. R. (2004). Function of self-esteem in terror management theory and

sociometer theory: Comment on Pyszczynski et al. Psychological Bulletin, 130,
478-482.

21
 Siddiqui

Marsh, H. W. (1989). Age and sex effects in multiple dimensions of self-concept –

preadolescence to early adulthood. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81,
417-430.

Masselink, M., Van, R. E., & Oldehinkel, A. J. (2018). Self-esteem in early

adolescence as predictor of depressive symptoms in late adolescence and early
adulthood: The mediating role of motivational and social factors. Journal of
Youth Adolescence, 47(5), 932-946. doi: 10.1007/s10964-017-0727-z.

Miller, D., & Moran, T. (2007). Theory and practice in self esteem enhancement:
Circle-Time and efficacy based aproaches-A controlled evaluation. Teachers
and Teaching, 13 (6), 601-615.

Papadopoulos, K., Metsiou, K., & Agaliotis, I. (2011). Adaptive behavior of children
and adolescents with visual impairments. Research in Developmental
Disabilities, 32, 1086-1096.

Pillay, S. (2016). Greater self-acceptance improves emotional well-being. Retrieved

from Havard Health Blog https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/greater-self-
acceptance-improves-emotional-well-201605169546

Peng, W., Li, D., Li, D., Jia, J., Wang, Y., & Sun, W. (2019). School
disconnectedness and adolescent internet addiction: mediation by self-esteem
and moderation by emotional intelligence. Computers in Human Behavior, 98,
111-121. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2019.04.011

Pope, A. W., Mchale, S. M., & Craighead, W. E. (1988). Self-esteem enhanchement

with children and adolescents. Oxford: Permagon Press.

Rizwan, M., Malik, S., Malik, J. N., & Siddiqui, R. S. (2-017). Urdu Rosenberg
Self–Esteem Scale: An analysis of reliability and validity in Pakistan.
Sociology International Journal, 1(2), 56-61. doi: 10.15406/sij.2017.01.00010

Rogers, C. R. (1959). A theory of therapy, personality, and interpersonal

relationships, as developed in the client-centered framework. In S. Koch (Ed.),
Psychology, A study of science (Vol. 3). New York: McGraw-Hill.

22
 Pakistan Journal of Psychology

Robins, R. W., Hendin, H. M., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2001). Measuring global self-
esteem: Construct validation of a single-item measure and the Rosenberg self-
esteem scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 151-161.

Robins, R. W., Norem, J. K., & Cheek, J. M. (1999). Naturalizing the Self. In L. A.
Pervin, & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and research
(pp. 443-477). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Rosenbergh, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton NJ:

Princeton University Press.

Saleem, S., & Mahmood, Z. (2011). The development of a Self-Esteem Scale for
Children in Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, 26(1).

Saigal, S., Lambert, M., Russ, C., & Hoult, L. (2002). Self-esteem of adolescents
who were born prematurely. Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey, 109(3),
109(3), 429-433. doi: 10.1542/peds.109.3.429

Snygg, D., & Combs, A. W. (1949). Individual Behavior: A frame of reference for
psychology. NewYork: Harper.

Tafarodi, R. W., & Milne, A. B. (2002). Decomposing global self-esteem. Journal

of Personality, 70 (4), 443-483.

Tariq, P. N. (1992). A comparitive psychological profile for profesional and non

professional criminals in Pakistan. [PhD. Thesis. Psychological Research
Monograph No. 10. National Institute of Psychology, Quaid-i-Azam
University].

Turner, R. H. (1968). The self-conception in social interact. In C. Gordon, & K.

Gergen (Eds.), The Self : Social Inteaction. NewYork: Wiley.

23